I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

Griscom shows a predilection toward loopy theories, as his revelatory blog post links to Jim Hoffman’s ceiling tile theory as a “very plausible scenario” of how the *therm*te could have gotten into the building.

As one of the authors of this paper, I can say that Prof. Griscom’s twelve pages of review were very well thought-out and required us to do considerable further work on the paper, which improved the final version significantly. This was one tough review, more challenging than any other review I have received, excepting perhaps peer-reviews of papers in Scientific American (1987) and Nature (1989) on which I was co-author. I should also add that I have never met Prof. Griscom personally and that I just learned of his blog disclosing himself as a peer-reviewer today (thanks to Dirk Gerhardt).

And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al. sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are criticisms? Just like the 9/11 Truth employs the famous Hush-a-Boom *therm*te whenever they wish to argue for explosive sounds or against them, we now have peer review that’s both rigorous and non-critical at the same time.

The bias of this “referee” of the ATM paper is palpable. Jones says that he has never “met” Griscom, nor knew explicitly that Griscom was a reviewer of the piece, but the Bentley Open review process allows, indeed requests, that authors suggest reviewers for the piece. Jones has not categorically denied that Griscom was not one of the suggested reviewers by the authors of the paper, and I’m afraid such a categorical denial is required in this case. If it turns out that Jones and Griscom have communicated over the Internet, or if Griscom is well-known by other authors of the paper (like Harrit) and was suggested by them, this will be another blow to the objectivity of the review process beyond what has already been revealed.

And here’s an idea! Why not have Griscom release his 12 pages of suggestions so that we can examine this rigorous non-critical review? It certainly would be interesting to read over.

(Please note: the term *therm*te is my own to keep from having to type out every iteration of thermite 9/11 Truth advocates employ in what I interprest as their shell game. We’ve seen nanothermite, super nanothermite, regular thermite, thermate, etc. It gets old qualifying every single statement about the thermite arguments.)